building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment

Dr Caroline.Sullivan, Oxford University Centre for Water Research

Less stressNo changeMore stress

Less stressNo changeMore stress

Building a robust indicator for monitoring

progress and prioritising investment


The GWAVA model of water

resources in E and S Africa

Source: Meigh et al, 98

-2.00 to -1.90-1.75 to -1.50-1.00 to -0.50-0.50 to 0.20

0.20to1.0

01.50 to 1.751.90 to 2.00

-2.00 to -1.90-1.75 to -1.50-1.00 to -0.50-0.50 to 0.20

0.20to1.0

01.50 to 1.751.90 to 2.00

The starting point for the WPI


To be useful, the WPI must be:• Easy to calculate• Cost effective to implement• Based as far as possible on existing data• Transparently calculated • Easy to understand

Assessing links between water & poverty

using the Water Poverty Index (WPI)

R e s o u r c e

A c c e s s

C a p a c i t y

U s e

E n v i r o n m e n t

O v e r a l l

W P I

v a l u e

S u b - c o m p o n e n t s





The WPI

has a low

score if

people are

water poor

Indices: A means of measuring something otherwise immeasurable,

and a method of conveying information .

Calculating the WPI

∑

∑

=

==�

i

i

�

i

ii

w

Xw

WPI

1

1 or, it can be expressed like this:

Each component is made up of subcomponents and combined using the same composite structure

eucar

eucar

wwwww

EwUwCwAwRwWPI

++++

++++=


Illustrating the value of the Water Poverty Index:

Examples from The Dominican Republic & Haiti

�These two countries located on the same island, provide an excellent example to demonstrate the value of the Water Poverty Index.

�Although the physical conditions are very similar, the scores on the national level WPI are very different.

�Water managers in each country can see where their weaknesses lie, and so actions can be prioritised

Country Resources Access Capacity Use Environment WPI

Dominican Republic 7.33 14.30 15.38 11.45 10.93 59.40Haiti 6.15 6.20 10.47 6.46 5.84 35.12

WPI component values

Dominican Republic and Haiti (WPImax=100)

Environment Access

CapacityUse

Resources

0

5

10

15

20

DominicanRep.(WPI=59.3)

Haiti (WPI = 35.1)

The situation in Haiti is much worse than in

the Dominican Republic – this is

mostly thought to be due to

poor governance


Application of the WPI at the national

scale to 148 countries


Applying the WPI to provincial level data

An example from

Benin, West

Africa

An example from the Mun River basin,

Thailand

Regional WPI

Benin

22

23 - 33

34 - 39

40 - 43

44 - 46

47 - 50

51 - 55

56 - 63

- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

H u a i S a m r a n ( 0 5 2 1 )

L a m S i e o Y a i ( 0 5 1 9 )

S e c o n d P a r t o f L a m N a m M u n ( 0 5 1 1 )

H u a i T h a ( 0 5 2 4 )

H u a i S a m r a n ( 0 5 2 3 )

H u a i K h a y u n g ( 0 5 2 5 )

L a m S i e o N o i ( 0 5 2 0 )

L a m C h i ( 0 5 1 6 )

H u a i P h o n g ( 0 5 2 6 )

L a m P a t h a i ( 0 5 0 9 )

L a m D o m Y a i ( 0 5 2 9 )

L a m T a o ( 0 5 1 8 )

L a m C h a k k a r a t ( 0 5 0 7 )

L a m C h o e n g k r a i ( 0 5 0 6 )

H u a i A e k ( 0 5 1 2 )

H u a i T a k h o n g ( 0 5 1 5 )

L a m P l a i M a t ( 0 5 1 0 )

L a m P h l a p p h la ( 0 5 1 7 )

L a m P h a n g S u ( 0 5 1 4 )

L a m S a T h a e t ( 0 5 1 3 )

L a m S a B o k ( 0 5 2 8 )

U p p e r P a r t o f L a m N a m M u n ( 0 5 0 2 )

L a m S a B a i ( 0 5 2 7 )

L o w e r P a r t o f L a m N a m M u n ( 0 5 3 0 )

L a m P h r a p h lo e n g ( 0 5 0 4 )

H u a i T h u n g L u n g ( 0 5 3 1 )

T h i r d P a r t o f L a m N a m M u n ( 0 5 2 2 )

L a m N a n g R o n g ( 0 5 0 8 )

L a m S a e ( 0 5 0 3 )

L a m T a k h o n g ( 0 5 0 5 )

L a m D o m N o i ( 0 5 3 2 )

Resource, WPI_R

Access, WPI_A

Capacity, WPI_C

Use,WPI_U

Environment, WPI_E

4 4 .5

3 7 .6

3 7 . 1

3 5 .6

3 5 .5

3 5 .4

3 2 .5

3 1 .5

2 8 . 6

2 7 .7

2 4 . 2

2 3 .8

2 3 .6

2 3 .1

2 2 .2

2 1 .6

2 0 .8

2 0 . 7

2 0 .0

1 9 .7

1 9 .1

1 9 .0

1 8 .9

1 8 . 1

1 7 .6

1 7 . 3

1 7 .2

1 7 .1

1 5 .2

1 5 . 1

1 1 .8

WPI of 31 Sub-basins in Mun River

S u b - b a s i n o f M u n B a s in


Application of the WPI approach to date• The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation: The WPI being used as the basis for the development of

a Rural Water Poverty Index which is being carried out by the FAO Land and Water Division • CANADA – The government of Canada has decided to develop a CanadianWater Sustainability Index

which has been designed on the basis of the Water Poverty Index. The main objective of this is to evaluate water access and resources in the communities of indigenous people. In the workshop we adapted the WPI methodology and added in an additional component representing culture.

• Taiwan – Application of the WPI at regional levels by Ministry of Water Resources, key issues identified through a Delphi process by government officials

• Australia: The WPI has been used as the basis for the development of an index to be used by the Australian Aid Organization (AUSAID). This index will be used to evaluate performance in the water sector in Pacific Island states in which Australia has a strategic interest. (working with the University of Western Australia and Griffith University, Brisbane

• Southern Africa: The WPI has been the basis of the development of a climate change related tool referred to as the Climate Vulnerability Index. This has generated a lot of interest, and is currently being further developed and applied in the Orange River Basin, a large transboundary basin which includes South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Lesotho.

• The CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) For the Challenge Programme on Water and Food , the WPI has been identified as a model which can be used to evaluate progress in their research programme.

• The Global Water Systems Project (GWSP) Part of the International Science Union – Dr Sullivan organised a workshop in Wallingford, for the Global Water Systems Project, to develop a methodology of developing integrated indices from large scale global datasets. This resulted in the development of a report which has been published as the GWSP working paper no 1, entitled ‘Mapping the Links Between Water Poverty and Food Security’ (www.gwsp.org)

• USA - Contribution to the development of an integrated ‘security index’ for SANDIA, and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. The WPI was used as an example of how an integrated index could be developed and Dr. Sullivan participated in the conceptualisation meeting as the ‘water expert’.

• Other – numerous students from Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Ethiopia, S. Africa, UK and the United States have been conducting research on the application of the WPI in various countries.


Flooding of

27 February

2000

Limpopo River

Save River

Incomati River

Maputo

Xai-xai

Chokwe

Potential use of other sources of data


WPI

Resourcesupply

Access Efficiency of use

HumanCapacity, infrastructure

Environmental integrity

Problems with WPI– All-embracing

– Inconsistent

– Mixes information

Benefits of WPI– All-embracing– Flexible– Able to combine

information types

Usefulness of the integrated index approach


Examining how WPI components may be

related

Investigating Conditional Independence in the WPI

Resources

EnvironmentAccess

Use Capacity

CI Conditional Independency

can be investigated using

Bayesian techniques

CI Conditional Independency

0

20

40

60

80

100


Identify problem, consult stakeholders

Construct preliminary BN

Collect data, expert opinion

Provide feedback to stakeholders, modify BN

Building Bayesian Networks

Use information to suggest possible outcomes


Developing an

index for the CPThe structure of such an index could include a measure of water resources which act as a constraint on the following components:• Health• Food security• Environment• Productivity• Institutional/human capacity

agriculture

industrialWater Productivity

Institutional capacity

Infrastructure

Education

Expenditure in Water sector

ParticipationCapacity

Political vulnerability

Climate vulnerability

Food self sufficiency

Malnourished ChildrenFood

Biodiversity

Water Quality

Fragmentation of Habitats

Flow Change Environment

Child mortality under 5

Access to safe domestic

water

Access to sanitationHealth

VariablesComponent

Potential structure


WPI

Resourcesupply

Access Efficiency of use

HumanCapacity, infrastructure

Environmental integrity

Rainfall Access Land Capacity Env.

Likelihood of sufficiency LS 11.67 7.00 2.33 3.50 1.00Likelihood of necessity LN 0.18 0.82 0.26 0.44 1.00

p(Non-Poor) Site Rainfall Access Land Capacity Env. p(Poor)0.31 Semi-arid -3 -3 4 1 2 0.690.55 Riverside -3 4 -1 2 3 0.45

NOTES: 1. Large number means it's all you need2. Small number means you need it3. Certainty that conditions are OK: best (+5) to worst (-5)

Extending the WPI through a Bayesian approach

Probabilities make uncertainties

explicit


Publications on the Water Poverty Index • Publications Journal Papers

• Sullivan C.A. and Meigh, J.R. (2007) Integration of the biophysical and social sciences using an indicator approach: Addressing water problems at different scales Journal of Water Resources Management

• Sullivan C.A. and Meigh J.R (2003) The Water Poverty Index: its role in the context of poverty alleviation. Water Policy,5:5. Oct 2003

• Wallace, J S., M.C. Acreman and C. A. Sullivan (2003) The sharing of water between society and ecosystems: from advocacy to catchment based co-management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London, B Biology Dec 2003, 513-528

• Sullivan C.A., Meigh J.R., Giacomello A.M., Fediw T., Lawrence P., Samad M., Mlote S., Hutton C., Allan J.A., Schulze R.E., Dlamini, D.J.M., Cosgrove W., Delli Priscoli J., Gleick P., Smout I., CobbingJ., Calow R., Hunt C., Hussain A., Acreman M.C., King J., Malomo S., Tate E.L., O'Regan D., Milner S. and Steyl I. (2003) The Water Poverty Index: Development and application at the community scale. Natural Resources 27:189-199

• Sullivan, C.A. (2003) The Water Poverty Index: A new tool for prioritisation in water management. In: World Finance. 32-34

• Sullivan C.A. (2002). Calculating a Water Poverty Index. World Development, 30, 1195-1210.• Sullivan C.A., (2001). The potential for calculating a meaningful Water Poverty Index. Water International, 26, 471-480.• Sullivan, C. A. (2000) Redefining the Water Poverty Index – A commentary. Water International, 25.4.• Research Reports

• Sullivan, CA., Vörösmarty, C., Bunn, S.,Cline, S., Heidecke, C., Storygard, A.,Proussevitch,A., Douglas, E., Bossio, D., Günther, D., Giacomello, AM., O’Regan, D and J.R. Meigh (2006) Mapping the Links between Water, Poverty and Food Security GWSP Working Paper/ CEH Report 2006 (in press)

• Sullivan, C.A., Meigh JR and Fediw T (2002) Developing and testing the Water Poverty Index: Phase 1 Final Report.Report to Department for International Development, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.

• Sullivan, C.A. (ed.) 2000. Constructing a Water Poverty Index: a feasibility study. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology/DFID.

• Lawrence, P. Meigh, J.R. and Sullivan, C.A. (2002) The Water Poverty Index, and International Comparison. KeeleEconomics Research Papers, 2002/19

• Book Chapter

• Sullivan C.A. and Meigh J.R. (2003) Access to water as a dimension of poverty: the need to develop a Water Poverty Index as a tool for poverty reduction. In: Olcay Ünver I.H., Gupta R.K. and Kibaroğlu A. (eds.), Water Development and Poverty Reduction, Kluwer, Boston, 31-52.

• Training handbook

• Sullivan, C.A., Meigh, J.R. and D. P. O’Regan (2002) Evaluating your water: A Management Primer for the Water Poverty Index. CEH Wallingford.

building a robust indicator for monitoring progress and prioritising investment

Education

i p h o n g

p o n e n ts c

n g s u

p o n e n ts e n v iro

n g r o n g

p o n e n ts r e

c h o e n g

s i n o f